IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.08.2025 Amandeep Singh @ Lucky and others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Kusum Rani since deceased through LRs ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-16993-CII-2025 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record certain additional documents as Annexures P-6 to P-9.

2. Heard.

3. Application is allowed, and the additional documents are taken on record as Annexures P-6 to P-9, subject to all just exceptions.

Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

CR-3463-2025 (O&M)

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants/judgment debtors under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, vide which the Sale Certificate was issued to the Decree Holder subject to the fulfilment of the certain terms and conditions as per law and the execution was disposed of being fully satisfied without affording any opportunity to the judgment debtors to file any objections.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Executing Court could not have passed the impugned order issuing Sale Certificate in respect of the suit property as the suit property already stood mortgaged with the Central Bank of India. It is submitted that due to non-payment of EMIs, property was declared as NPA and the SARFAESI proceedings were initiated against the suit property. Order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was passed for taking physical possession of the property as evident from the documents pertaining to the SARFAESI Act proceedings against the property in dispute (Annexure P5). It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per provision of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Executing Court being a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to override or interfere with the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, impugned order could not have been passed.

3. It is further submitted that the suit property is the only residential premises of the petitioners; where they are residing. It is submitted that petitioners have been facing financial hardship and that the petitioners shall pay the decretal amount of Rs.7 lacs along with interest thereupon at the earliest. It is further submitted that the value of the suit property is about Rs.80 lacs at present, which is disproportionate to the decretal amount. It is accordingly prayed that the present Civil Revision be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

4. No other argument is made by ld. counsel for the petitioners. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail.

6. I have given my very thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, in view of the facts as recorded herein below, this Court is unable to grant prayer of the petitioners.

7. The record reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance with alternative prayer for recovery of Rs.7 lacs against the petitioners. The suit was decreed exparte against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) holding the plaintiffs entitled to recover earnest amount of Rs.7 lacs along with interest @ 6% p.a. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners had filed an Appeal dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to be still pending before the learned District Judge, SBS Nagar. In the meantime, the respondents had filed an Execution Application dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P-3), which has been disposed of vide the impugned order dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure P-4).

8. On a Court query as to why the above said objections have not been taken by the petitioners before the learned Executing Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly replied that a